[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: RFPET Recommendation
I don't remember it being my idea as much as the group's consensus. I recall we might have discussed the terms "rent" and "lease" but the key message was that we don't want DRE equipment used, so make any solution for 2004 temporary.
As for leasing, I'm not claiming to be a financial whiz, but the vendor doesn't have to be the lessor, there are third party companies that finance leases of equipment. More of that voluntary blindness over there at the clerk's office that can only figure something out if the vendor tells them how to do it. I think this has been discussed at a CVV meeting as well, perhaps if we had representation on the panel we might have been able to help even when it comes to the money side of the deal. Heck, you could probably even buy it on a credit card and then return it after the election for a complete refund! (kidding, sorta, but not about the refund)
That original request to lease might have even been late '03, and the other very specific requests we made included ballot markers, as well as for the commissioners and clerk to lobby for needed legislative changes.
That was two years ago, and the clerk has never once since then lifted a finger to try and do what we asked of her, and now we see the attitude is blame the citizens for her latest incompetence, yet again.
Two years of digging out from the hole she dug by ignoring our advice not to go with the system she insisted on buying, and she hasn't dealt with the deadline she's known about since 2002?
And someone wants to suggest that the current mess is the fault of a barely active mailing list with maybe a dozen participants!?! 

Long live the Internet!

Joe
PS - Also, since CVV's presentation to the commissioners, let the record show there are an increasing number of groups and people active on this issue, so suggestions that the citizen activists are some noisy minority are seriously misinformed. Let a thousand flowers bloom ;-) 


On Mar 30, 2006, at 4:42 AM, Some Guy wrote:


Hmmm ... some clarification is due - sorry Bo.
It was Joe Pezzillo who suggested leasing back in early 04 when we were talking about the Ballot Now system. I'd heard him say it before in a closed group, but the first time the lease word appeared on the radar was from Joe. 
Thank you Joe.
Leasing elections equip is nothing new to Boulder or any other county. BoCo has leased Diebold scanners since 1998. Many rural counties lease more of 
what they need on even numbered years when turn out is higher.

The ERC recommended renting new systems or additional bits if the need
arose. It has (dubious). In December, former ERC members sent a letter to 
the BoCC and clerk reiterating our list of recommendations.
We do not believe that it is fiscally responsible to purchase unproven
systems. We paid millions to be a beta test site for Hart - that is clear. We specifically chose the word *rent* as opposed to *lease*. Leasing means you are a buyer and leasing contracts penalize the leaser if they don't buy. Leasing is always to the advantage of the vendor, renting is a plain deal.
The idea that this or any county could resell their elections systems at anything but an immense loss is based on lack of knowledge. Would you buy a 
used system from a county who was plagued by problems with it?
Yes, we could sell it for scrap, but the county isn't going to get some kind of tax break on a business loss. It is not a business, it is a tax funded 
service.
The experience that the ERC had with Hart and Eagle and the laws in flux 
convinced us that buying anything would be a terrible mistake at this
juncture. None of this stuff is ready for prime time.
While I understand that some folks think that we need to procure DRE at this time (or ever) there are many who think it unwise. Our clerk has invented a 
deadline that does not exist. She's misinterpreted HAVA and her staff
follows her lead. The county attorney asked her opinion before advising the BoCC. I have doubts that he's actually read HAVA. Only a few people actually have and most agree that section 301 says we don't need DRE. It might appear 
to be impractical, but the law is pretty clear.
As there is consternation over what HAVA actually says, and we only have one certified vendor to choose from at this time - why would we want to buy or 
lease anything?
If your response is that Linda will go to jail or that the state won't
certify our election, better check with the state circuit court, which has 
already stated that it won't be hearing cases this year about HAVA
non-compliance.
Linda Salas wants BoCo to spend a million bucks to restore her good name. 
Nothing more.

Some Guy


-----Original Message-----
From: Delta [mailto:delta@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 2:42 PM
To: Neal McBurnett; cvv-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: RFPET Recommendation

Let me set the record straight....
(see below)


-----Original Message-----
From: Neal McBurnett [mailto:neal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 9:16 AM
To: cvv-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RFPET Recommendation


Attached is a new version of the RFPET Recommendation which has
searchable/copyable text.

I don't yet see it at the clerk's web site

 http://www.co.boulder.co.us/clerk/elections/index.htm

It is a shame to see the committee not require that the system comply
with Colorado law (by producing auditable results) and rush ahead in
the face of so many problems.


WRONG! The recommendations say that a real audit must be and *can* be
performed....
YOU were instrumental in us recommending that!


 And the 'bait and switch' from a rental

to suggesting that it be bought is a real end-run around the
democratic process.


Bullcrap! It is being fiscally responsible.
Do you know what the leasing price is???   a.b million
Do you know what the purchase price is???    a.b million
(I *think* the price is public at this time, but just in case)
So, which would *you* do? Rent it for a price and then give it back, or buy it for the same price and then at least have something you could sell or 
even scrap....*something*??
Lease it and you got nada.....there is no other option.




We haven't seen the price yet, but the county should offer the same
possibility to other bidders and start the RFP process over, with
specific invites to ballot marking vendors and demands that the
Secretary of State should certify ballot marking equipment like other
states do.


And how does this get us compliant for the election in November????
You know what *really* pisses me off?
The Clerk is in this position BECAUSE OF THIS GROUP OF CVV ACTIVISTS!
YOU pushed to rent not purchase.....
and when the Clerk got screwed because *nobody* wants to rent ( who knew?) 
NOW you jump all over them for trying to salvage the situation?

you're a better man than that, Neal.....




Neal McBurnett                 http://bcn.boulder.co.us/~neal/
Signed and/or sealed mail encouraged.  GPG/PGP Keyid: 2C9EBA60




--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.3/296 - Release Date: 03/29/2006